On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 5:10 PM Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:00 AM Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:19 PM <yla...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > Author: ylavic > > > Date: Thu Jan 7 13:19:08 2021 > > > New Revision: 1885239 > > > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1885239&view=rev > > > Log: > > > mod_proxy_wstunnel: leave Upgrade requests handling to mod_proxy_http. > > [snip] > > > +static int proxy_wstunnel_post_config(apr_pool_t *pconf, apr_pool_t > > > *plog, > > > + apr_pool_t *ptemp, server_rec *s) > > > +{ > > > + fallback_to_mod_proxy_http = 0; > > > + if (ap_state_query(AP_SQ_MAIN_STATE) != AP_SQ_MS_CREATE_PRE_CONFIG) { > > > + apr_size_t i = 0; > > > + const module *mod; > > > + while ((mod = ap_loaded_modules[i++])) { > > > + if (strcmp(mod->name, "mod_proxy_http.c") == 0) { > > > + fallback_to_mod_proxy_http = 1; > > > + break; > > > + } > > > + } > > > + } > > > > doesn't ap_find_linked_module() do this?
I tried to find it by grep-ing and following "ap_loaded_modules" and was a bit surprised it didn't exist actually. I should have looked for the other "ap_top_module" list :) Changed in r1885244. > > > I wonder if, instead of the above loop to check whether mod_proxy_http > > is loaded, we'd better have an OPTIONAL_FN registered by > > mod_proxy_http and retrieved here. > > > ISTR that we allow for different versions of (proxy) modules to run > > together, so if a user upgrades to the latest mod_proxy_wstunnel but > > keeps an older mod_proxy_http the above would not work.. > > I don't think we should have to tolerate this, not for included > modules. Is the context maybe for downstream distributions? I was thinking of them yes, but I suppose that the maintainers also apply fixes with their whole context, and can figure out here that both modules need an update (if they ever want to apply this). > > > Maybe I should apply the attached patch instead, or is it overkill? > > since it's already written and short and conceptually pretty simple I > think it's good. OK, just added as is to the backport proposal. Thanks Eric.
